Eh...the information in the dossier was fabricated by by Steele and Fusion GPS, leaked to the media and the FBI. Was then used by the FBI as the basis for FISA warrants (where the FBI then perjured themselves and forged documents to hoodwink the FISA court)

You said the campaign fabricated it. You're saying the Democratic Party acted way worse than Watergate in this affair.

From what I've read, some of the stuff was corroborated, other stuff was either falsely fed to Steele by the Russians or exaggerated by him or both.

Is there evidence that the campaign fabricated it? Is there evidence that Fusion GPS did so? Is there hard evidence at this point that Steele did so?

Them main elements of the dossier were fabrications and exaggerations. The dossier was initiated by and paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It was used by the FBI to surveil a campaign and by the media undermine a duly elected president.

And you are okay with all that....,

So it wasn't fabricated by the campaign. You're repeatedly on here saying it was fabricated by the campaign as if Hillary Clinton and John Podesta sat down themselves and made shit up out of whole cloth. And as if Trump was some innocent boy scout who had never even heard of Russia but was nonetheless being falsely maligned by the darkest, most malevalent conspiracy ever to be unleashed on the political landscape of America. Steele went to the FBI due to HIS concerns about what he was learning. NOT the Clinton campaign. Or Fusion GPS (who were initially hired by and started looking into Trump and Russia at the behest of a Republican).

You really think if the Clinton campaign knew the FBI was investigating Trump during the campaign it wouldn't have been screaming about it? How come Comey kept THAT little nugget secret, but not Weiner's laptop? Why was the NYC FBI office not leaking stuff to the Clintons instead of Giuliani in the run-up to the election?

And I've never said I was ok with false allegations.

However, this absolutely doesn't keep me up at night because it is virtually impossible to know what's true and what's not. Multiple investigations have found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including those of the McConnell-led Senate. Trump's people DID meet with the Russians to try to get dirt. Manafort had all kinds of dodgy and corrupt connections with Russian and Ukranian oligarchs and interests. Trump himself has financial ties to Russia and is completely opaque about his finances beyond the boasting and bluster about his wealth (they were in the f**king Supreme Court last week still trying to keep everything secret). Mueller reported repeated lies and obstruction by Trump and his associates when it came to their contacts with Russia, wikileaks and so on. Shocking that you can't prove something when everyone circles the wagons and you can't follow the money. And when of course the big man himself couldn't be interviewed because.. you know... perjury trap! I could go on...

Eh...the information in the dossier was fabricated by by Steele and Fusion GPS, leaked to the media and the FBI. Was then used by the FBI as the basis for FISA warrants (where the FBI then perjured themselves and forged documents to hoodwink the FISA court)

You said the campaign fabricated it. You're saying the Democratic Party acted way worse than Watergate in this affair.

From what I've read, some of the stuff was corroborated, other stuff was either falsely fed to Steele by the Russians or exaggerated by him or both.

Is there evidence that the campaign fabricated it? Is there evidence that Fusion GPS did so? Is there hard evidence at this point that Steele did so?

if the Russians were feeding Steele with false information to hurt trump then how would trump be colluding with Russia to get elected at the same time , was Vlad just sitting back laughing at the whole lot of them .

Possibly.

Or maybe Russian sources aren't all a single homogeneous body with the same motivations and interests. Spying and intelligence gathering wouldn't work very well if everything in each country was being tightly controlled by the man at the head of the government, would it?

Wow-that’s some interpretation of “facts” J70. They commissioned it, they paid for it and they leaked it and it was (almost) all nonsense. It was used to rogue FBI agents to surveil an opponents campaign.

The fact you and everyone else on here don’t see anything wrong with this is very disturbing

One campaign fabricates a opposition research report[1] and then feeds it to rogue FBI agents[2] who wiretap the other campaign[3]. That puts Watergate in the hapenny place

Can you supply citations for [1], [2] & [3] please?

Again - even if all that you allege is true - it still pales into insignificance compared to what Trump has done.

edit: Also, if I am interpreting it right, could that be written as:- Political party hires private investigators to investigate a political opponent with questionable background[11].- Investigation reports worrying activity which may be criminal in nature[12].- Political party then hands the report off to criminal investigators due to the issues raised[13].- Criminal investigators then investigate that opponent as they see fit[14]

[11] as opposed to using their political influence to get law enforcement to do their bidding.[12] leaving aside the competence of the investigators, the political party are not in a position to judge that.[13] as opposed to hiding potential evidence into serious criminal activity?[14] should the political party that started the private investigation then interfere with a criminal investigation?

What should they have done differently? Put yourself in their shoes and assume that you have serious misgivings about a political opponent, what would you do?

Wow-that’s some interpretation of “facts” J70. They commissioned it, they paid for it and they leaked it and it was (almost) all nonsense. It was used to rogue FBI agents to surveil an opponents campaign.

The fact you and everyone else on here don’t see anything wrong with this is very disturbing

Wow-that’s some interpretation of “facts” J70. They commissioned it, they paid for it and they leaked it and it was (almost) all nonsense. It was used to rogue FBI agents to surveil an opponents campaign.

The fact you and everyone else on here don’t see anything wrong with this is very disturbing

If there is something wrong with my interpretation, address it.

So if the Trump campaign hires and pays an oppo research firm to go to the Ukraine and generate a dossier of unverified and outrageous allegations against Joe Biden you’ll be on board with that.

Then let’s say the Trump campaign (or the oppo research firm they employed), then shares that research with rogue elements within the FBI who then use it as the basis for FISA warrants to wiretap the Biden campaign you’d also be on board with that.

Then let’s say these rogue FBI agents committed 17 “errors” during the FISA application process, which include forgery, perjury and concealment.....many of which were designed to conceal the true nature and origin of the dossier from the FISA judges you’d be on board with that

And then to top it off the dossier becomes a key element to open a Special Counsel investigation of newly elected President Biden and anyone associated with him. The scope of the SC nvestigation is so broad that they can essentially go back decades and investigate all sorts of things completely unrelated to what’s in the dossier, you’ll be on board with that

One campaign fabricates a opposition research report[1] and then feeds it to rogue FBI agents[2] who wiretap the other campaign[3]. That puts Watergate in the hapenny place

Can you supply citations for [1], [2] & [3] please?

Again - even if all that you allege is true - it still pales into insignificance compared to what Trump has done.

edit: Also, if I am interpreting it right, could that be written as:- Political party hires private investigators to investigate a political opponent with questionable background[11].- Investigation reports worrying activity which may be criminal in nature[12].- Political party then hands the report off to criminal investigators due to the issues raised[13].- Criminal investigators then investigate that opponent as they see fit[14]

[11] as opposed to using their political influence to get law enforcement to do their bidding.[12] leaving aside the competence of the investigators, the political party are not in a position to judge that.[13] as opposed to hiding potential evidence into serious criminal activity?[14] should the political party that started the private investigation then interfere with a criminal investigation?

What should they have done differently? Put yourself in their shoes and assume that you have serious misgivings about a political opponent, what would you do?

One campaign fabricates a opposition research report[1] and then feeds it to rogue FBI agents[2] who wiretap the other campaign[3]. That puts Watergate in the hapenny place

Can you supply citations for [1], [2] & [3] please?

Again - even if all that you allege is true - it still pales into insignificance compared to what Trump has done.

edit: Also, if I am interpreting it right, could that be written as:- Political party hires private investigators to investigate a political opponent with questionable background[11].- Investigation reports worrying activity which may be criminal in nature[12].- Political party then hands the report off to criminal investigators due to the issues raised[13].- Criminal investigators then investigate that opponent as they see fit[14]

[11] as opposed to using their political influence to get law enforcement to do their bidding.[12] leaving aside the competence of the investigators, the political party are not in a position to judge that.[13] as opposed to hiding potential evidence into serious criminal activity?[14] should the political party that started the private investigation then interfere with a criminal investigation?

What should they have done differently? Put yourself in their shoes and assume that you have serious misgivings about a political opponent, what would you do?

So if the Trump campaign hires and pays an oppo research firm to go to the Ukraine and generate a dossier of unverified and outrageous allegations against Joe Biden you’ll be on board with that.

Then let’s say the Trump campaign (or the oppo research firm they employed), then shares that research with rogue elements within the FBI who then use it as the basis for FISA warrants to wiretap the Biden campaign you’d also be on board with that.

Then let’s say these rogue FBI agents committed 17 “errors” during the FISA application process, which include forgery, perjury and concealment.....many of which were designed to conceal the true nature and origin of the dossier from the FISA judges you’d be on board with that

And then to top it off the dossier becomes a key element to open a Special Counsel investigation of newly elected President Biden and anyone associated with him. The scope of the SC nvestigation is so broad that they can essentially go back decades and investigate all sorts of things completely unrelated to what’s in the dossier, you’ll be on board with that

Wow-that’s some interpretation of “facts” J70. They commissioned it, they paid for it and they leaked it and it was (almost) all nonsense. It was used to rogue FBI agents to surveil an opponents campaign.

The fact you and everyone else on here don’t see anything wrong with this is very disturbing

If there is something wrong with my interpretation, address it.

So if the Trump campaign hires and pays an oppo research firm to go to the Ukraine and generate a dossier of unverified and outrageous allegations against Joe Biden you’ll be on board with that.

Then let’s say the Trump campaign (or the oppo research firm they employed), then shares that research with rogue elements within the FBI who then use it as the basis for FISA warrants to wiretap the Biden campaign you’d also be on board with that.

Then let’s say these rogue FBI agents committed 17 “errors” during the FISA application process, which include forgery, perjury and concealment.....many of which were designed to conceal the true nature and origin of the dossier from the FISA judges you’d be on board with that

And then to top it off the dossier becomes a key element to open a Special Counsel investigation of newly elected President Biden and anyone associated with him. The scope of the SC nvestigation is so broad that they can essentially go back decades and investigate all sorts of things completely unrelated to what’s in the dossier, you’ll be on board with that

Rudi Giuliani literally has been travelling back and forth from the Ukraine over the past 6-8 months doing exactly that!!

Wow-that’s some interpretation of “facts” J70. They commissioned it, they paid for it and they leaked it and it was (almost) all nonsense. It was used to rogue FBI agents to surveil an opponents campaign.

The fact you and everyone else on here don’t see anything wrong with this is very disturbing

If there is something wrong with my interpretation, address it.

So if the Trump campaign hires and pays an oppo research firm to go to the Ukraine and generate a dossier of unverified and outrageous allegations against Joe Biden you’ll be on board with that.

Then let’s say the Trump campaign (or the oppo research firm they employed), then shares that research with rogue elements within the FBI who then use it as the basis for FISA warrants to wiretap the Biden campaign you’d also be on board with that.

Then let’s say these rogue FBI agents committed 17 “errors” during the FISA application process, which include forgery, perjury and concealment.....many of which were designed to conceal the true nature and origin of the dossier from the FISA judges you’d be on board with that

And then to top it off the dossier becomes a key element to open a Special Counsel investigation of newly elected President Biden and anyone associated with him. The scope of the SC nvestigation is so broad that they can essentially go back decades and investigate all sorts of things completely unrelated to what’s in the dossier, you’ll be on board with that

If there was legitimate reason to believe that Biden was potentially compromised by or conspiring with the Ukranians to influence the election, I would have no problem with the FBI opening an investigation or with a campaign or the source their contractor worked with passing on such information for them to look at. If Biden subsequently stonewalled the investigation at every turn and tried to undermine it and dangle pardons to encourage non-cooperation, I would have no problem with the negative publicity and congressional oversight it would invite. I might not like the outcome in that it would strengthen the chances of having to live under Republican policies, many of which I find abhorrent, but that's a separate issue. You lie down with dogs, you might get fleas.

Fair enough, And what if the allegations against Biden were mainly unfounded and were in fact Russian disinformation fed to Trumps campaign proxy by Russian Intelligence, how would you feel about that dossier being used as the basis to wiretap Bidens campaign (and the agents involved did everything in the process to conceal the true origin of the document from the FISA court)

Fair enough, And what if the allegations against Biden were mainly unfounded and were in fact Russian disinformation fed to Trumps campaign proxy by Russian Intelligence, how would you feel about that dossier being used as the basis to wiretap Bidens campaign (and the agents involved did everything in the process to conceal the true origin of the document from the FISA court)

That's a separate issue. Investigate it, and if it is suspected there was deliberate wrong doing, prosecute those agents.

Fair enough, And what if the allegations against Biden were mainly unfounded and were in fact Russian disinformation fed to Trumps campaign proxy by Russian Intelligence, how would you feel about that dossier being used as the basis to wiretap Bidens campaign (and the agents involved did everything in the process to conceal the true origin of the document from the FISA court)

That's a separate issue. Investigate it, and if it is suspected there was deliberate wrong doing, prosecute those agents.

And what about the Special Counsel investigation which was also based in large part in the false dossier? What should happen with that. Rose stein admitted under oath that he knew it was false, yet included it as justification for the appointment of the SC

And how about if all of Trumps spokespersons has gone on air 24/7 regurgitating elements of the debunked Biden dossier that they knew to be false.....you’d be fine with that too?

Fair enough, And what if the allegations against Biden were mainly unfounded and were in fact Russian disinformation fed to Trumps campaign proxy by Russian Intelligence, how would you feel about that dossier being used as the basis to wiretap Bidens campaign (and the agents involved did everything in the process to conceal the true origin of the document from the FISA court)

That's a separate issue. Investigate it, and if it is suspected there was deliberate wrong doing, prosecute those agents.

And what about the Special Counsel investigation which was also based in large part in the false dossier? What should happen with that. Rose stein admitted under oath that he knew it was false, yet included it as justification for the appointment of the SC

And how about if all of Trumps spokespersons has gone on air 24/7 regurgitating elements of the debunked Biden dossier that they knew to be false.....you’d be fine with that too?

This

There was plenty of other grounds for the special counsel, not just the dossier.

REP. GOWDY: I actually don't think it has any impact on the Russia probe for this reason —

MARGARET BRENNAN: The memo has no impact on the Russia probe?

REP. GOWDY: No-- not to me, it doesn't — and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.

And what would you say to the former members of Trumps National Security team who publicly state on National TV that the Biden Ukrainian dossier is true, but while under oath admit that very little of it is true

And what about the Republican congressional candidate, ( a former member of Trumps National Security Team) who goes on Morning Joe and claims she saw evidence with her own Two eyes of the Biden’s colluding with Ukraine, yet under oath admits she saw no such evidence.